Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 30, 20212021001010 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/588,273 05/05/2017 Juan Diego Ferre 14917.3218US01/402060USNP 8332 27488 7590 06/30/2021 MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USPTO27488@merchantgould.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUAN DIEGO FERRE, DEVI JALAKANDAPURAM VISWANATHAN, and ROSHIN LAL RAMESAN Appeal 2021-001010 Application 15/588,273 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001010 Application 15/588,273 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to sharing events with structured metadata. Spec. ¶ 3. Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for sharing events with structured metadata comprising: a processor; a memory storage device including instructions that when executed by the processor provide an event structurer configured to: receive a message transmitted from a sender to an original recipient that is related to an event for the original recipient; parse the message to identify metadata of the event; create a calendar item for the original recipient based on the metadata; incorporate the metadata into the message; receive a share action from the original recipient identifying a new recipient and a portion of the metadata relevant to the new recipient; incorporate the portion of the metadata relevant to the new recipient into a shared message; and transmit the shared message to the new recipient. 8. A method for sharing events with structured metadata, comprising: receiving a share action identifying an event in a calendar associated with an original recipient of a message from which the event is based, a new recipient, and a portion of metadata of the event relevant to the new recipient; creating a shared message, the shared message including: a message body; an identifier for the new recipient; and the portion of metadata of the event relevant to the new recipient encoded in a machine-readable division of the shared message to indicate that the shared message is a shared event; and transmitting the shared message to the new recipient. Appeal 2021-001010 Application 15/588,273 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2,2 6–13, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nelson (US 2011/0106892 A1, published May 5, 2011) and Siegel (US 2014/0136630 A1, published May 15, 2014). Claims 3–5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nelson, Siegel, and Schnitman (US 2014/0337441 A1, published Nov. 13, 2014). OPINION Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 15–20 We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that Siegel fails to disclose that the original recipient of the message from the sender shares or otherwise forwards the meeting request to a new recipient. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner finds “Nelson does not explicitly teach a share action from the original recipient identifying a new recipient,” and finds Siegel teaches “a user sending an email to a second user with the metadata concerning the meeting.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner then concludes an ordinary artisan “would understand that the first user of Siegel can be the original recipient of the instant application because a meeting attendee may wish to re-assign the meeting to a subordinate, thus sending the meeting information to the second user.” Id. at 3–4; see also Answer 4. What the Examiner is admitting here is that neither Nelson nor Siegel discloses a recipient (the second user) forwarding a message to a third user, as claimed. Instead, the Examiner apparently is finding, without evidence, that the original sender (the first user) in these two references could have 2 The Examiner includes claim 3 in the statement of rejection (Final Act. 2), but the claim is actually rejected along with claims 4, 5, and 14 (id. at 9). Appeal 2021-001010 Application 15/588,273 4 first received it, outside the disclosures of both references. This is pure speculation, unsupported by any evidence in the record. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, because the obviousness determination is conclusory. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Because independent claim 15 recites substantially similar requirements, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 15, which was rejected using the same rationale as claim 1. Final Act. 7. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, and 16–20 that depend from claims 1 and 15. Claims 8–13 Independent claim 8 recites “creating a shared message, the shared message including: a message body.” In claim 1, a system is configured to “receive a share action from the original recipient identifying a new recipient and a portion of the metadata relevant to the new recipient; incorporate the portion of the metadata relevant to the new recipient into a shared message.” Claim 8 thus includes the creation of a “message body” that is not recited in claim 1. However, the Examiner finds “the claim recites elements substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. Thus, the art and rationale applied to claim 1 apply to claim 8.” Final Act. 5. We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the rejection is in error because no citations are provided for the additional limitation not in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7. Appeal 2021-001010 Application 15/588,273 5 Because a complete prima facie case of obviousness of claim 8 has not been established, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, nor of dependent claims 9–13. Claims 3–5 and 14 The Examiner has not established on the record that Schnitman remedies the shortcomings in the combination of Nelson and Siegel. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3–5 and 14, for the same reasons as for claims 1 and 8. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6–13, 15–20 103 Nelson, Siegel 1, 2, 6–13, 15–20 3–5, 14 103 Nelson, Siegel, Schnitman 3–5, 14 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation